Just a protest that went too far....you mean like the vast minority of BLM marches that ended with rioting? No, sorry, this was planned, organised, executed, and was planned by and supported from the Whitehouse, "it's gonna be wild", not a spontaneous over exuberance by people demanding they not be murdered by police where the organisers immediately and strongly denounce those causing damage and injuries and call for them to stop.


How is what you copied and pasted one word different from what I said?
The fbi released the information about him, including photos of him dressed in all black with his glasses hood and mask in the capitol and his posts and discussions with under cover agents outlining his intention to try to frame Antifa for the riot/coup by dressing like them in a press release, there's no crime of impersonating Antifa, nor a crime for having his friends do surveillance in public areas without an actual illegal action attached, but it will all be brought up at his trial and sentencing for....

Knowingly Enter or Remain in any Restricted Building or Grounds Without Lawful Authority to do so and Knowingly, and with Intent to Impede or Disrupt the Orderly Conduct of Government Business or Official Functions, Engage in Disorderly or Disruptive Conduct in, or Within Such Proximity to, Any Restricted Building or Grounds, When, or so that, Such Conduct, in Fact, Impedes or Disrupts the Orderly Conduct of Government Business or Official Functions

Disorderly Conduct on Capitol Grounds

Obstruction of an Official Proceeding....


In other words, charges for his actions during the failed violent coup for Trump that his supporters attempted that killed 5 and that he attempted to blatantly falsely blame on Antifa, just like you do.

Don't be surprised if conspiracy and terrorism charges come soon.

"According to the court record, at the time of his arrest he had several guns, including an AK-47, and the material to make 50 molotov cocktails. Not what you need for a peaceful protest, more what you bring to a violent government overthrow.
An undercover officer with the D.C. police first encountered Duong at the Capitol on Jan. 6, according to the government. Duong described himself as an “operator” and later explained that he wore all black to look like an anti-fascist activist, the government alleged in court documents. In video later seen by investigators, Duong is identified in court documents as shouting “We’re coming for you Nancy” and pushing a fellow protester toward the doors on the Senate side of the building.

"They stayed in touch, and a week later Duong allegedly told the undercover officer he was part of a “cloak and dagger” group that will “build resistances . . . for what will inevitably come.” In March, he told associates, “Keep your guns and be ready to use them.”

"He and others held “Bible study” where they discussed firearms explosives and other training, according to court documents; Duong also brought someone he described as a “three percenter” to one meeting. The right-wing Three Percenters movement, formed in 2008, is named after the false claim that only 3 percent of colonists fought in the American Revolution, many of it's members have been charged in the Jan 6 failed coup.
He talked about surveilling the Capitol building, and in February an associate took some footage of it, according to prosecutors. He also talked about freeing alleged rioters who were behind bars, saying, according to the government, “I see that as an opportunity. With every great revolution, you go to the prisons and you break them out.”
According to the court documents, he and the undercover agent toured the jail in Lorton, Va., where he talked about testing out explosives. He told the agent, the government alleged, that he was working on a “manifesto,” saying, “If I get into a gun fight with the feds and I don’t make it, I want to be able to transfer as much wisdom to my son as possible.” Prosecutors say he also discussed how far he could shoot on his family’s property in the event of a raid and said it could be the site of a second Waco.
He said at a meeting in June that he had collected Styrofoam and more than 50 wine bottles to make molotov cocktails but had held off on buying fuel “to avoid . . . being hit with a conspiracy charge,” according to the complaint filed against him. He told the undercover agent he had been saving motor oil from his car for that purpose."

Yep, sure sounds like a peaceful right wing protester to me, not another anti government right wing terrorist trying to blame their deadly anti American violence on the left....nooooooo.

Yeah...it was a bad joke based on similar statements said in all seriousness by right wing representatives bragging about how easy they made development, and how much they were pro business. Now that deaths are reported, I retracted it. I thought the building was empty when I wrote it.
That said, if it is a 'failure to meet code' issue, then at least the 'code enforcement' part would be on point, even if in extremely bad taste.

12 cm is huge if only some parts sank and others didn't. That's why I always found downtown Houston scary, all those high rises built before 90 are sinking at different rates. They have tunnels connecting some that were flat when built and now are all ramps, some too steep to use! Yikes!

They do have codes, Florida actually has some of the strictest building codes in the country. The building was actually being worked on and updated to meet additional local hurricane codes at the time of the collapse.

Every state has to meet the codes established by the ICC or one of the organizations that existed separately before they merged. The only city to ignore these codes and go completely by their own code is Chicago.


At the municipal level, the city can add more building codes to meet specific local hazards or weather. Miami/Dade has very strict hurricane codes that need to be met.

I suspect that we will find that the fault in this lies with the building owner failing to meet code or maintenance updates in a timely manner, as well as the fact that the building experienced subsidence in the amount of 12 cm between 1993 and 1999. This is not that unusual in structures built on barrier islands and it ceased sinking in 1999.

What does her actions have to do with school shootings? She wasn't attempting to show how easy she could bring a gun into the school. Unless this mother never lets her daughter leave the house, she goes to more dangerous places than school.

If she's concerned about the security at the school, she should have brought her concerns to the school board or bring it up at a PTA meeting and asked that they conduct a security audit, instead of taking it upon herself to do it.

We're living in the safest time in history, but thanks to the 24/7 media fearmongering, people are overly paranoid. Schools are more like prison these days than schools, and schools are trying to extend their control over students beyond the classroom, and it's conditioning them to believe that it's normal to be controlled/watched everywhere and have no freedom.

Statistically, her daughter is more likely to be raped, murdered or abused by a family member or friend, not some stranger sneaking into school to go to math class and eat a free lunch.

And no, I wasn't implying the mother is an attention whore. I merely pointed out that school is the least dangerous place her daughter goes. But, she did record her actions... for attention.

And more Derp..
Reported today, the Texas governor and numerous other officials were warned days ahead of the storm by the then chair of the public utility commission of Texas DeAnn Walker that the state did not have nearly enough natural gas on hand to get through the storm. This, she warned, was guaranteed to cause power outages during the deadly freeze which would result in Texans dying unnecessarily.
They made no moves to get more.
Because they refuse to meet minimum federal standards, they could not just go to their neighbors during the emergency begging for help, but could have purchased more natural gas beforehand...they had plenty of warning to prepare.

Instead the asshats ignored the shortages, ignored the deadly storm, and pretended the power went out because their wind turbines weren't weatherized (which they would have been if they ran like California, especially California before deregulation destroyed our systems decades ago). This led to many deaths by freezing. Foreseen, avoidable deaths and billions in damages.


Once again, since you seem ignorant, California's power problems are due 100% to lack of maintenance by the companies that took over when we deregulated decades ago under Republican Pete Wilson's administration. (Btw, because I don't think you know, between '82 and 2011 California was under Republican leadership for all but 4 years) The for profit companies deferred maintenance so much that now they are the main cause for billions in wildfire damages... and the solution? Not catch up on maintenance, just shut down if there's wind. That's what deregulation gets you. That's what you advocate for and support....then deride as a liberal idea when it fails miserably.
So much ignorant delusion. It's all the right is based on today. Baseless lies and morons who believe it and NEVER verify. Lol indeed.

Bwaaahahaha. Too late. He might have been dismissed had it been brought up before deliberation started, but not now, it's over. Chauvin is convicted. You don't get a mistrial after a verdict, and a mistrial isn't exoneration, he would be tried again, with more witnesses and evidence. Even your video only claims it might help an appeal, not a mistrial. That cracker jack box law license isn't working, Bobby.

Chauvin's attorney is barely more competent than Giuliani. He put experts on the stand that hadn't examined the facts or evidence but came to conclusions anyway. His gawdawful defense is a MUCH better case for an appeal than a jurist that once wore a t shirt.

He may have a point that it's not proper to mislead on a questionnaire (although you support it, remember. Lying under oath is the smart thing to do if it helps your cause, according to you when Trump lied under oath in his depositions), but attending one MLK March doesn't disqualify a person from being a jurist, just like having a nice interaction with police or a decent estimation of them doesn't.

Edit: sounds like the jury question was had they participated in a blm protest, the rally he was filmed at was an MLK get out the vote rally Floyd's family happened to speak at, so he didn't lie.

It's a nothing burger brought up too late. He will appeal, and will bring this up, but it is far from meeting the standards to grant a new trial at this point. Even if he gets an appeal on other grounds, the evidence is overwhelming, he will simply be convicted again, possibly of harsher charges.

If he's not for some unfathomable reason, he will wish he was, because he will have a target on him and those with him for life. Prison is the safest place for him, and the only chance of safety his family has.

Sorry Charlie.

Edit: Funny how you are on the side of the murdering white cop and not the black murder victim here....and you still claim you aren't racist....but when a cop hurts a white woman or a violent white power MAGA moron you can suddenly see they're going too far.

Your video, snoozing fox meets a plucky little black-crested titmouse, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

My understanding was that the areas that rely on wind for up to 25% of their power were not the areas that had power shortages but on the contrary were some of the only generation still happening in the state....of course, if Texas wasn't so obstinate they would agree to meet federal standards, would have upgraded both their wind and fossil fuel generation to withstand hard freezes, and would have had access to power from their neighbors if they still failed, and would have had billions of federal dollars to make it happen, but noooooo.....

Truth be told, Texas expected only 7% of total winter generation to be renewable/wind and got much more than that. They lost nearly half of their wind generation capabilities temporarily at the peak of the freeze, 16GW, but that loss was only half what was lost from natural gas and nuclear coolant freezing, 30+GW, and it was down longer.

(btw, I was born and raised in Texas)

We are about the worst country in the world ATM but not for lack of stupid regulations.

Wearing masks in closed spaces where you meet strangers is obviously good while not 100% effective. Same goes for large groups, packed, for prolonged time outside.

The jury is still out on what "being vaccinated" or "having antibodies" means exactly for the spread of the disease.

Try it. If she takes the kid and bolts, it's legal. Even if you manage to get a court order before she leaves state, chances are you won't get equal custody unless she's a documented certifiable nutjob. I say this because you live in a fault state which are invariably the same states backwards enough to automatically give women custody and force fathers to prove the mother is unstable and dangerous, and even then you'll share with her as primary without documented abuse.

So you've been together 20 years and share nothing. What a way to live.

Shared assets when not married aren't divided by the courts. If you want their help, gotta be married or sign an ownership contract with every purchase.

I can find no instance where I said my brother "won". He got custody, that's different from "winning". Be real. If you're going to quote me, please don't make up the quotes. Spending over $100000 on a two week marriage isn't winning by my definition.

That link is off topic. Find a study of similar jobs with similar hours worked and compare salaries, not a study that says average women work X ammount less so overall earning should be X amount less but instead it's X-1 less, so women are overpaid. That's not what their study showed, they're extrapolating there, and ignoring that the lower hours are usually not their choice, but their superiors orders to avoid paying overtime and full benefits to women. Also, they said Married men managers without kids also earn more for each hour at work: they earn $38.40 per hour while married women without kids earn only $28.70. That means that for each hour spent at their jobs, male married managers without kids earn about 34% more than women. 34% more for each hour. Did you read it? Mic drop.

See, more insulting dismissiveness...those women couldn't possibly be more competent or harder workers, they must be succeeding because of preferential treatment. In case you missed it, that's incredibly misogynistic.

What?! Prove it.....with data not an anecdote.

So....You wouldn't marry a crazy person only because of what divorce would cost. Yeah....right.

" I wouldn't even consider marrying anyone that has any adverse indicators" sounds like personal issues to me, they aren't good enough to marry....because of divorce....Again ignoring the prenup that dictates divorce splits.

Lol. Such utter bullshit. Maybe if they have an impairment and no lawyer, and can prove it in court, not because they say so.

Ashley Maddison.

Wedding rings are aphrodisiacs. It's why I don't wear one, hit on repeatedly wearing it, never once without it. My experience differs from your assumptions and statistics, same with my friends. I'm 5'9", so not tall cute and photogenic....but two out of three ain't bad.

Bob said it, you agreed with him and more.

An uncodified partnership is one of convenience or even imaginary. Nothing to stop either of you walking tomorrow if you meet your new soul mate. That's not a stable partnership. It may be exactly what you want. It seems you made up your mind that marriage=bad for men long ago, in which case you should not partake. I hope your path leads to at least half the happiness mine has.

Newt

What on earth are you talking about?
Do you believe the government dictates your vows? What "rules"? You just cannot grasp the concept of no fault divorce or prenuptial, can you?

I guess you never planned on kids or shared assets. If you do, not having a marriage means you almost certainly will pay for them for 18+ years but won't have many rights to be in their lives, and may lose your rights to any assets if she grabs first. Uncle Sam is in your relationship, married or not....without a marriage contract, he makes ALL the rules and you have no say.

My brother paid well over a hundred thousand dollars for his divorce in Texas that in my state would have cost under $10K and you congratulate him? You are one strange person.

Again, your perception, not based in fact since the 60's. You assume women take off time to raise the kids and take care of parents and assume fathers don't take paternity leave or have obligations outside work. How 50's. You start from a false position that men work both harder and better, but you have no data to back that up. It certainly hasn't been my experience, I've seen women in the workplace working harder and longer for less pay, sacrificing just like their male counterparts if not more, putting off having families until it's too late while men can have kids long after normal retirement age, putting themselves in dangerous situations where those with power over them have opportunities to abuse that power and abuse those women in ways that rarely happen to men. These aren't exceptions, they're the norm.

Um...so since you admit many women outearn men and the trend reinforces that, meaning soon women in most catagories will out earn men and have more to lose, you admit you're wrong in your position now, right? Of course not, I expect you will still start from a point that hasn't been correct since the era and sexual revolution, early 70's at latest.

No, many of the studies I've seen compared people in the same exact positions in the same industries, even same companies, and women consistently get paid less for the exact same job and hours, and women rarely work less today, and just as often out work their male counterparts knowing they are often token hires not valued by the bosses so have less job security. If I recall correctly, 80% of job losses due to Covid were women, and the men are getting rehired faster. I think you are thinking of some studies from the 80's that made those assumptions and accusations. Comparing apples to apples, women still get shortchanged and as often as not overworked.

Bullshit. You said you would immediately dismiss any woman who has...
"Long dating history? Too much risk
Tends to have short relationships? Too much risk
Likes attention? Too much risk
Single mother (non-widow)? Too much risk
Any mental issues (depression, bipolar, narcissist, anxiety, etc)? Too much risk
Older (why you still single...)? Too much risk
Likes to party? Too much risk
Drinks? Too much risk"

And again, prenuptial. Do you not know what they are? Specify what you expect and agree, and you walk with exactly what you agreed to, no government rules or split involved. Geez. You speak as if you had never heard of them.

Most divorces may be initiated by the woman (if that's true, I expect it's just another assumption) because their husbands are more likely to break their vows first, but are not willing to pay to end the marriage, including penalties for breaking the marriage contract, and we're too dumb to get a prenuptial (or got one that spells out harsh penalties for cheating). Yes, I am assuming men cheat on their spouses more often than the reverse, because men are wired that way.

You are not more likely than not to face a divorce, because it's unlikely any woman meeting your criteria would give you a second thought, and you need to get married to get divorced.

I bet if you show your significant other this thread your 20 year relationship will be in big trouble, or at best enter a long dry dark spell. Women don't like men that believe wholeheartedly that all women are just lessers, leeches that take more than they deserve or even could give back and destroy you whenever they think it serves them. It's probably a good thing you aren't married.

Laws and family court aren't as you describe. Maybe when you enter the 21st century you'll recognize that. The rules of your marriage can be whatever you agree to, including the specifics of the split if it ends.

It's a sad thing you can't grasp that a codified, delineated, agreed to partnership is almost always better, more fulfilling, and has many benefits cohabitation lacks.....almost always unless one or both of you are total douchebags.

"Snatch" meets Star Trek -- BRILLIANT!
Also, the Scottish Transformers made me laugh so hard I almost shit myself.

The heart is the meeting place between the brain and the crotch.